N.D. R. Crim. P. 5
Joint Procedure Committee Minutes of April 24, 2020, pages 4-5; May 12-13, 2016, page 29; September 24-25, 2015, page 15; April 23-24, 2015, pages 14-15; April 28-29, 2011, pages 17-18; May 21-22, 2009, pages 2-10; April 27-28, 2006, pages 2-5, 15-17; January 29-30, 2004, pages 22-23; September 26-27, 2002, pages 12-13; January 27-28, 1994, pages 3-5; September 23-24, 1993, pages 4-7; April 20, 1989, page 4; December 3, 1987, page 15;February 22-23, 1973, page 18; March 23-24, 1972, pages 2-3, 11-12; January 27, 1972, pages 17-22; November 21-22,1969, pages 2, 8-9, 17-19; May 3-4, 1968, pages 1-2; January 26-27, 1968, pages 7-9.
EXPLANATORY NOTE
Rule 5 was amended effective 3/1/1990;1/1/1995;3/1/2006;6/1/2006;3/1/2010;8/1/2011;3/1/2016; amended by Order dated December 22, 2016 effective 3/1/2017; 3/1/2021.
Rule 5 is derived from Fed.R.Crim.P. 5. Rule 5 is designed to advise the defendant of the charge against the defendant and to inform the defendant of the defendant's rights. This procedure differs from arraignment under Rule 10 in that the defendant is not called upon to plead.
Subdivision (a) provides that an arrested person must be taken before the magistrate "without unnecessary delay." Unnecessary delay in bringing a person before a magistrate is one factor in the totality of circumstances to be considered in determining whether incriminating evidence obtained from the accused was given voluntarily.
Subdivision (a) was amended, effective1/1/1995, to clarify that a "prompt" judicial determination of probable cause is required in warrantless arrest cases.
Subdivision (b) is designed to carry into effect the holding of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, 10 A.L.R. 3 d 974 (1966). Because the Miranda rule is constitutionally based, it applies to all officers whether state or federal. One should note that the protections required by Miranda apply as soon as a person "has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way," while the requirement that an accused be taken before a magistrate is applicable only to an "arrested person." The Miranda decision is based upon the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, and holds that no statement obtained by interrogation of a person in custody is admissible, unless, before the interrogation begins, the accused has been effectively warned of the accused's rights, including the right not to answer questions and the right to have counsel present.
Subdivision (b) specifies the action which must be taken by the magistrate. Subparagraphs (b)(1)(A), (b)(1)(B), and (b)(1)(C) are stated by Miranda to be absolute prerequisites to interrogation and cannot be dispensed with on even the strongest showing that the person in custody was aware of those rights.
Paragraph (b)(1) was amended, effective6/1/2006, to remove a reference to court appointment of counsel for indigents. Courts ceased appointing counsel for indigents on1/1/2006, when the North Dakota Commission on Legal Counsel for Indigents became responsible for defense of indigents.
Paragraph (b)(2) provides an additional requirement to the instructions given by the magistrate in paragraph (b)(1) when the charge is a felony. It requires the magistrate to inform the defendant of the right to a preliminary hearing. The Sixth Amendment right to counsel applies to a preliminary hearing granted under state law because the preliminary hearing is a critical stage of the state's criminal process.
Paragraph (b)(2) was amended, effective 3/1/2016, to require the defendant in a felony case to be informed at the initial appearance of the right of a defendant who is not a U.S. citizen to request that a consular officer be informed of the defendant's arrest. This amendment was based on the December 1, 2014 amendment to Fed.R.Crim.P. 5.
Subdivisions (b) and (c) were amended, effective 3/1/1990. The amendments track the 1987 amendments to Fed.R.Crim.P. 5, which are technical in nature, and no substantive change is intended.
Subdivision (c) was amended, effective1/1/1995, in response to elimination of county courts and to ensure that a defendant is not called upon to waive the preliminary hearing or to plead without the assistance of counsel at the initial appearance.
Subdivision (d) was amended, effective March, 1, 2004, to permit the use of interactive television to conduct initial proceedings. Subdivision (d) was amended, effective3/1/2006, to reference N.D.Sup.Ct.Admin.R. 52, which governs proceedings conducted by interactive television. Subdivision (d) was further amended, March 1, 2016, to allow the use of contemporaneous audio or audiovisual transmission by reliable electronic means to conduct initial proceedings.
Subdivision (e) was added, effective March 1, 2010, to provide a procedure for using the uniform complaint and summons. Statutory provisions governing the uniform complaint and summons, which is commonly referred to as the "uniform citation," are in N.D.C.C. §§ 20.1-02-14.1 and 29-05-31.
Subdivision (e) was amended, effective 3/1/2016, to require the prosecuting attorney to file a written dismissal if the prosecuting attorney decides not to pursue a charge filed with the court on a uniform complaint and summons. Rule 5 was amended, effective3/1/2006, in response to the12/1/2002, revision of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. The language and organization of the rule were changed to make the rule more easily understood and to make style and terminology consistent throughout the rules.
Rule 5 was amended, effective8/1/2011, to include new language indicating that either "the complaint or information" can be used as a charging document. N.D.C.C. § 29-04-05 was amended in 2011 to specify that "A prosecution is commenced when a uniform complaint and summons, a complaint, or an information is filed or when a grand jury indictment is returned." Rule 5 was amended, effective March 1, 2017, to replace the term "preliminary examination" with "preliminary hearing" throughout the rule.
Rule 5 was amended effective 3/1/2021, to delete the term "affidavit" and replace it with "declaration." This amendment was made in response to N.D.C.C. ch. 31- 15, which allows anyone to make an unsworn declaration that has the same effect as a sworn declaration, such as an affidavit. N.D.C.C. § 31-15-05 provides the required form for an unsworn declaration.
STATUTES AFFECTED:
SUPERSEDED: N.D.C.C. §§ 29-05-04, 9-05-11, 29-05-17, 29-05-19, 29-07-01, 29-07-02, 29-07-04, 29-07-05, 29-07-07, 29-07-08, 29-07-09, 29-07-10, 33-12-07, 33-12-09.
CONSIDERED: N.D.C.C. ch. 31-15, §§ 20.1-02-14.1, 29-04-0529-05-3129-07-03, 29-07-06, 40-18-15, 40-18-16, 40-18-18.
N.D.R.Crim.P. 5.1 (Preliminary hearing); N.D.R.Crim.P. 10 (Arraignment); N.D.R.Crim.P. 35 (Correcting or Reducing a Sentence); N.D.R.Crim.P. 43 (Defendant's Presence); N.D.R.Crim.P. 44 (Right to and Assignment of Counsel); N.D.Sup.Ct.Admin.R. 52 (Contemporaneous Transmission by Reliable Electronic Means).